........../\
...........|
...........|
<-------
In the immortal words of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"Awright! We'll call it a draw!"
Which productions just "stick the landing" with you?
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
........../\
...........|
...........|
<-------
In the immortal words of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"Awright! We'll call it a draw!"
The Black Knight always triumphs.E'en if he has not a leg to stand on. (It's merely a flesh wound)
But woe betide the one against whom I call upon The Knights Who Say....Nee!
But woe betide the one against whom I call upon The Knights Who Say....Nee!
Noo!!!
No, no...it's Nih!
(incidentally, methinks we've Pythonised the thread)
On that note, my friend, I must away with me to the bed. I have another day of dealing with drunken ignoramuses whose musical knowledge seems to consist of only "Sweet Child of Mine", "Sweet Caroline", "Sweet Home Alabama", "Don't Stop Believin'", "Jesse's Girl", "Summer of '69"...and any AC/DC song. And I shall need what few faculties I have remaining to surmount the odds.
So...on that note, I bid you "Good..............
....
Nih!"
ha ha ha ha ) 
Well, it seems the battle wages on.
Personally, I'm hitting a middle ground here. I realize that many (with no one in particular in mind) look to entertainment to have emotional resonance of some kind- the "I just watched Star Trek!" feeling that has been described.
For me, I just don't go in to a production, fan or otherwise, expecting a specific emotion to be produced. If its a comedy, hopefully it is funny and drama more serious, etc. etc. I just don't need that emotion from the production. I go in to it wanting to be entertained, and hopefully have something to think about at the end.
I'll not say that no fan production can "feel" like Star Trek but just that it isn't important to me. I haven't seen all the fan productions out there and maybe one will jump out. Now that i know the difference between STC and NV (not New Vegas, thank you very much) I have more to explore.
To each their own, I suppose.
Personally, I'm hitting a middle ground here. I realize that many (with no one in particular in mind) look to entertainment to have emotional resonance of some kind- the "I just watched Star Trek!" feeling that has been described.
For me, I just don't go in to a production, fan or otherwise, expecting a specific emotion to be produced. If its a comedy, hopefully it is funny and drama more serious, etc. etc. I just don't need that emotion from the production. I go in to it wanting to be entertained, and hopefully have something to think about at the end.
I'll not say that no fan production can "feel" like Star Trek but just that it isn't important to me. I haven't seen all the fan productions out there and maybe one will jump out. Now that i know the difference between STC and NV (not New Vegas, thank you very much) I have more to explore.
To each their own, I suppose.
Oh come on...if you didn't already KNOW it was a fanfilm you'd look at it and say "The acting is just as good, the FX are just as good, the story is just as good."
If it walks like a good pro-film, and talks like a good pro-film, then it's as good as a pro-film.
I was pretty clear in m OP and subsequent posts what I was intending by saying "real", but such is the nature of the times we live in I guess...
No, what comes across as (because it is) elitist condescension is telling someone that their assessment of a project is invalid and easily dismissed because they aren't an "industry professional", as I was several times in at least one thread here and. then being told that I'm not supposed to defend my position because it's "poster not post" arguing.
So I'm supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you won't extend the same courtesy?
You're not the one who owes an apology. I never had a problem with you. Even when we disagree, you've gone out of your way generally not to be a prig about it...unilke some.
See above. I'm supposed to give him something you're not willing to allow me have as well (on this issue).
That's a generally fair statement, if at odds with what you've said above. I'm more confused by the contradiction than anything else.
In both cases, from "I just watched real Star Trek" to "none of the above", then no harm, no foul. If it can be agreed that in neither case, nothing was what it seemed to be to others, then we carry on as if nothing untoward ever happened.
You and me, we're good. Balls in his court on his case.
(split for length)
Ok, elaborate. Make your case.
It isn't necessary, but it's a heck of a nice bonus when it happens.
I'm even open to it happening in the JJ-verse. There were several parts of ID that broke through the loud, dumb and hormonal noise and actually earned the right to call themselves Trek. But that universe has a long ways to go before I find it as compelling as the Prime universe.
My position remains (as it has been all along): I'll take JJ Trek over No Trek, but I'll take Prime Trek over JJ Trek every day of the week.
Side note: BigJake, I appreciate the support, but I'm asking you to let it go. The one you're debating with isn't the one I have issues with.
Ok, elaborate. Make your case.
It isn't necessary, but it's a heck of a nice bonus when it happens.
I'm even open to it happening in the JJ-verse. There were several parts of ID that broke through the loud, dumb and hormonal noise and actually earned the right to call themselves Trek. But that universe has a long ways to go before I find it as compelling as the Prime universe.
My position remains (as it has been all along): I'll take JJ Trek over No Trek, but I'll take Prime Trek over JJ Trek every day of the week.
Side note: BigJake, I appreciate the support, but I'm asking you to let it go. The one you're debating with isn't the one I have issues with.
I honestly don't get why anyone is having "issues" with anyone. A question was posed, people answered, and some people think there are fanfilms which for them met your "Wow! I just watched real Star Trek!" criteria and for some none do. So what?
Phantom, I don't think you're meant to triple post like that.
As for the original question, my honest answer is none of them. Keep in mind that's not a slight on the productions themselves, or the people making them. It's just some 'tell' about them (other than the recasting of course) which means I can never fully buy 'oh, this is an actual continuation of the official series.'
In my case, I think that's because I mostly watch TOS stuff (for eg. Continues) and even with talented people doing their darndest to emulate the 60's style and techniques, they literally can't make something that is a product of the 60's. The technology is different, the medium is different, and of course it's a different creative team trying to emulate TOS style (as opposed to just 60's producers just doing they think works on their budget.)
But that's not a bad thing. It's just like with 'Troubles and Tribble-ations' and 'Flashback', I like them a lot as they're own 'thing' (episodes in another sub-series in those two's cases) and not as a long lost episode of TOS.
As for the original question, my honest answer is none of them. Keep in mind that's not a slight on the productions themselves, or the people making them. It's just some 'tell' about them (other than the recasting of course) which means I can never fully buy 'oh, this is an actual continuation of the official series.'
In my case, I think that's because I mostly watch TOS stuff (for eg. Continues) and even with talented people doing their darndest to emulate the 60's style and techniques, they literally can't make something that is a product of the 60's. The technology is different, the medium is different, and of course it's a different creative team trying to emulate TOS style (as opposed to just 60's producers just doing they think works on their budget.)
But that's not a bad thing. It's just like with 'Troubles and Tribble-ations' and 'Flashback', I like them a lot as they're own 'thing' (episodes in another sub-series in those two's cases) and not as a long lost episode of TOS.
Last edited:
I think Hela said far more succinctly what I'm about to try and say here. (Well, said, Hela. )
We're good, Phantom. And as you can see, Big Jake and I have ended our debates with our customary comedic tendencies. So, I'm back on track with the original spirit of this thread.
I think, when it comes to the acting in a fan film, especially when it involves canonically (and iconically) established characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, etc., there are, for some, a base desire to hear the "voices" of those characters as portrayed by Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Nichols, Doohan, etc. again. It might not be apparent to some folks as to why fan actor portrayals might come "close, but no tranya". Some actors might be able to nail Shatner's halted recitation of lines, or perhaps even Scotty's brogue, but the "voice". There's that little niggling that one subconsciously might not be able to put their finger on when they're watching an otherwise top-notch quality fan film. It is a tall order to fill for the actors portraying these iconic roles. When doing a fan film based on the original Trek, yes, one wants to capture the spirit of the original series actors as much as within the fan actor's capabilities. It will be the same when more fan films are made of the Abrams-era Trek...the way those characters are portrayed by Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, etc. It will fall on the fan actors to capture their spirit as well, if not quite their voices.
I'm gonna side bar here a bit:
It's almost like..... did anyone else, as a kid, ever get those little Read Along With The Record books based on their favorite sci-fi movies? Star Wars, The Black Hole, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, etc?
When I was a kid, the only one I had was The Black Hole, and I had heard the one for Star Wars...more on that in a minute.
Thanks to YouTube recently, I'd been able to listen to some others of those kinds of records.
In the case of ST III, all it did was convey the story, and, if I recall correctly, only had one voice actor, and he was doing the role of Kirk. He tried so hard to nail Kirk's desperate side, but didn't quite hit it. (And the music and sound effects were like nothing I'd heard in the film version...it was just some melodramatic melody, and the sound effects were very generic).
I'd heard better impersonations of the main characters on those old LP story records that came with like 5 or six mini-adventures. (Although Sulu was made to sound completely nothing like his on-screen character in TOS... he sounded more like a caricature of a stereotype of just some Japanese dude who just happened to speak English, and who just happened to be helming the Enterprise.)
The Black Hole and Star Wars at least got the official music and sound effects down. The voice actors did decent jobs of impersonating some of the characters, but still, it was more caricature rather than approximation. (Not that it really matters to a small kid, unless he was born with the "nerd gene" --I would be one of those-- that enabled him to say: "That's not Vader!") And speaking of which, in the Star Wars record, yeah, Vader sounded nothing like his big screen version. Princess Leia sounded like an indignant twelve year old. Luke sounded even whinier. But, again, it still got the story (generally) across.
In The Black Hole, the voice actors did a better job of not quite sounding so much like over the top impersonations. They sounded closer to their characters, but I could still tell, even as a kid, that they were not the real actors. Still, the story came across pretty well.
(For better experiences, best to have simply gotten the LP recordings of the truncated versions of the actual movies. I used to have the TRON story LP, and listened to it constantly.)
Back to fan films:
That's where the other qualities of the film and the actors will aid in smoothing over that little speed bump... perhaps Vic Mignona is really good at copping Kirk's stance, and some of his vocal mannerisms, or someone playing Scotty might be able to nail his sly grin, or body language. The dialogue itself might very well channel the best of any character. The story might bring out those things in Star Trek that most resonated with fans and viewers of the actual shows. And visual effects and set design have far and away improved over fan films of years past. There are some really talented amateur CG animators and practical effects folk out there.
For some, those qualities might very well help "stick the landing", and some folk might feel as if they've seen a missing episode from Star Trek, or the Star Trek universe. For others, they are simply enjoyable experiences and efforts that, while set in the Trek universe, still don't quite come across with the impact of a full on, paid professional production.
Your actual parsecs may vary. Take these opinions with a swig of Tranya.
TL;DR? Sometimes, it's all in the voice.
)We're good, Phantom. And as you can see, Big Jake and I have ended our debates with our customary comedic tendencies. So, I'm back on track with the original spirit of this thread.
I think, when it comes to the acting in a fan film, especially when it involves canonically (and iconically) established characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, etc., there are, for some, a base desire to hear the "voices" of those characters as portrayed by Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Nichols, Doohan, etc. again. It might not be apparent to some folks as to why fan actor portrayals might come "close, but no tranya". Some actors might be able to nail Shatner's halted recitation of lines, or perhaps even Scotty's brogue, but the "voice". There's that little niggling that one subconsciously might not be able to put their finger on when they're watching an otherwise top-notch quality fan film. It is a tall order to fill for the actors portraying these iconic roles. When doing a fan film based on the original Trek, yes, one wants to capture the spirit of the original series actors as much as within the fan actor's capabilities. It will be the same when more fan films are made of the Abrams-era Trek...the way those characters are portrayed by Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, etc. It will fall on the fan actors to capture their spirit as well, if not quite their voices.
I'm gonna side bar here a bit:
It's almost like..... did anyone else, as a kid, ever get those little Read Along With The Record books based on their favorite sci-fi movies? Star Wars, The Black Hole, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, etc?
When I was a kid, the only one I had was The Black Hole, and I had heard the one for Star Wars...more on that in a minute.
Thanks to YouTube recently, I'd been able to listen to some others of those kinds of records.
In the case of ST III, all it did was convey the story, and, if I recall correctly, only had one voice actor, and he was doing the role of Kirk. He tried so hard to nail Kirk's desperate side, but didn't quite hit it. (And the music and sound effects were like nothing I'd heard in the film version...it was just some melodramatic melody, and the sound effects were very generic).
I'd heard better impersonations of the main characters on those old LP story records that came with like 5 or six mini-adventures. (Although Sulu was made to sound completely nothing like his on-screen character in TOS... he sounded more like a caricature of a stereotype of just some Japanese dude who just happened to speak English, and who just happened to be helming the Enterprise.)
The Black Hole and Star Wars at least got the official music and sound effects down. The voice actors did decent jobs of impersonating some of the characters, but still, it was more caricature rather than approximation. (Not that it really matters to a small kid, unless he was born with the "nerd gene" --I would be one of those-- that enabled him to say: "That's not Vader!") And speaking of which, in the Star Wars record, yeah, Vader sounded nothing like his big screen version. Princess Leia sounded like an indignant twelve year old. Luke sounded even whinier. But, again, it still got the story (generally) across.
In The Black Hole, the voice actors did a better job of not quite sounding so much like over the top impersonations. They sounded closer to their characters, but I could still tell, even as a kid, that they were not the real actors. Still, the story came across pretty well.
(For better experiences, best to have simply gotten the LP recordings of the truncated versions of the actual movies. I used to have the TRON story LP, and listened to it constantly.)
Back to fan films:
That's where the other qualities of the film and the actors will aid in smoothing over that little speed bump... perhaps Vic Mignona is really good at copping Kirk's stance, and some of his vocal mannerisms, or someone playing Scotty might be able to nail his sly grin, or body language. The dialogue itself might very well channel the best of any character. The story might bring out those things in Star Trek that most resonated with fans and viewers of the actual shows. And visual effects and set design have far and away improved over fan films of years past. There are some really talented amateur CG animators and practical effects folk out there.
For some, those qualities might very well help "stick the landing", and some folk might feel as if they've seen a missing episode from Star Trek, or the Star Trek universe. For others, they are simply enjoyable experiences and efforts that, while set in the Trek universe, still don't quite come across with the impact of a full on, paid professional production.
Your actual parsecs may vary. Take these opinions with a swig of Tranya.
TL;DR? Sometimes, it's all in the voice.
Not hearing the voices of the original cast can be a bit of a barrier for some, myself included. And it can go two ways: either the new actor tries too hard to duplicate the original actor or they don't come near enough. So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
To that end I think perhaps it's better if an anctor plays it more subtle and brings something of their own to a performance with a hint or echo of the original performer rather than try to duplicate the original performance as closely as possible.
A fan production will work for me when--like so much else--they do more right than wrong. They also work better when they retain certain elements that feel authentic to the original source materiel.
Forgive me for repeating myself regarding STC, but I felt their last episode was their weakest. Yes, it was well done in of itself, but they strayed too far from how TOS might have told such a story to the point that such a story would not likely have been done. It had too much of a contemporary/TNG sensibility to it to feel really a part of TOS. Indeed it felt more like conventional fanfic of the hurt/comfort variety. It was too much one of those "ought to" stories.
I think some of the better stories in Star Trek were when they brought something from outside and adapted it into the Trek universe rather than senselessly regurgitating and rehashing what was already done before. I think that approach would feel more authentic and more in the spirit of the original source materiel.
To that end I think perhaps it's better if an anctor plays it more subtle and brings something of their own to a performance with a hint or echo of the original performer rather than try to duplicate the original performance as closely as possible.
A fan production will work for me when--like so much else--they do more right than wrong. They also work better when they retain certain elements that feel authentic to the original source materiel.
Forgive me for repeating myself regarding STC, but I felt their last episode was their weakest. Yes, it was well done in of itself, but they strayed too far from how TOS might have told such a story to the point that such a story would not likely have been done. It had too much of a contemporary/TNG sensibility to it to feel really a part of TOS. Indeed it felt more like conventional fanfic of the hurt/comfort variety. It was too much one of those "ought to" stories.
I think some of the better stories in Star Trek were when they brought something from outside and adapted it into the Trek universe rather than senselessly regurgitating and rehashing what was already done before. I think that approach would feel more authentic and more in the spirit of the original source materiel.
I was going to say a similar thing about the content. There are times when a fan film does things or goes places that the official productions probably wouldn't, or at least haven't in its history. Sometimes it's just having a lot of references and injokes to the wider franchise, sometime it's an injecting of different sensibilities. It can be in a lot of different ways.
That's not necessarily a bad thing (it can be a very good thing), but it is a reminder that you're not watching the 'real' thing. Especially with the films/episodes that are meant to be set 'in' or beside the official ones.
That's not necessarily a bad thing (it can be a very good thing), but it is a reminder that you're not watching the 'real' thing. Especially with the films/episodes that are meant to be set 'in' or beside the official ones.
And this is where we will respectfully agree to disagree. I don't think that Trek needs to feel a certain way for me to enjoy it, much less find it compelling. There is so much variety over the years of Star Trek that expecting it all to feel the same seems unrealistic. Heck, even GR's "vision" of Trek changed between TOS and TNG. Nothing wrong with that either.
Also, as Hela pointed out (well said, by the way) the differences of what STC, NV, etc are in terms of materials,actors and methods are different enough for me to notice. It isn't a knock on them, but it doesn't change that I don't hold them up to the same level of a professional production. Same thing for the much debated Axanar. It expands upon the universe in an interesting way, but that doesn't mean it has a professional polish, at least to me. So, I don't treat it like a professional project. I treat it as something to be enjoyed and entertained, which I did.
@ Hela: I thought I fixed that...not sure what I should do now. That middle post is a monster. Oh wel...
In general, I take the point (and agree with it) that OCs have a somewhat better shot at breaking though, since the performers aren't fighting an iconic portrayal. They're also more likely to get interesting and a broader range of stories, since you aren't locked into the mode of "can't change things too much"..
In fact, my Trek tastes these days in general run towards OC-based projects. The sense of "script immunity" is so much less with an OC franchise.
In general, I take the point (and agree with it) that OCs have a somewhat better shot at breaking though, since the performers aren't fighting an iconic portrayal. They're also more likely to get interesting and a broader range of stories, since you aren't locked into the mode of "can't change things too much"..
In fact, my Trek tastes these days in general run towards OC-based projects. The sense of "script immunity" is so much less with an OC franchise.
Not going to try to dig out quotes for this post; here's my final 2 cents before bowing out of the conversation.
JJ Trek "feels" more like a star wars take on ST, perhaps a better quality/better budget version of Nemesis, than the more popular outings of Trek (latter DS9, TNG and of course TOS). I happened to enjoy "Star Trek" 2009 as a fluffy popcorn movie, despite its major flaws.
"Authentic Trek" is about the exploration of the human in the unknown - character development being the vehicle for such exploration - when Kirk violates the PD willfully to save a planet, for example. Or being obvious in his loathing* of the Klingons (and civilians) in "Tribbles". Despite having a low TV budget for what TOS was supposed to accomplish, it accomplished a lot and more, both in its time and influencing an entire generation. Sure there were duds. Having a guaranteed production commitment made TNG and Voyager lazy. DS9 wasn't immune to that laziness either, although it pulled itself back together fairly quickly. DS9 really perfected the contrast of the human being at his best and at his worst, both on an individual and species level - there's a reason that "In the Pale Moonlight" is considered to be one of the finest hours of Trek ever (the contrast with Sisko who is willing to sacrifice everything to save everything, with Garak who is willing to do the exact same thing out of simple expediency. My personal favorite, although "Trouble With Tribbles is up there too, but for different reasons. Although I don't believe it would have worked as a TOS episode; mainly because Kirk would have essentially been Garak).
Frankly, even the best fan productions simply don't have the capability to reach that depth or polish, no matter how enjoyable the final product may be.
That said, some of the fan films i've seen have blown me away, and hopefully more will strive to reach a more professional level of polish.
JJ Trek "feels" more like a star wars take on ST, perhaps a better quality/better budget version of Nemesis, than the more popular outings of Trek (latter DS9, TNG and of course TOS). I happened to enjoy "Star Trek" 2009 as a fluffy popcorn movie, despite its major flaws.
"Authentic Trek" is about the exploration of the human in the unknown - character development being the vehicle for such exploration - when Kirk violates the PD willfully to save a planet, for example. Or being obvious in his loathing* of the Klingons (and civilians) in "Tribbles". Despite having a low TV budget for what TOS was supposed to accomplish, it accomplished a lot and more, both in its time and influencing an entire generation. Sure there were duds. Having a guaranteed production commitment made TNG and Voyager lazy. DS9 wasn't immune to that laziness either, although it pulled itself back together fairly quickly. DS9 really perfected the contrast of the human being at his best and at his worst, both on an individual and species level - there's a reason that "In the Pale Moonlight" is considered to be one of the finest hours of Trek ever (the contrast with Sisko who is willing to sacrifice everything to save everything, with Garak who is willing to do the exact same thing out of simple expediency. My personal favorite, although "Trouble With Tribbles is up there too, but for different reasons. Although I don't believe it would have worked as a TOS episode; mainly because Kirk would have essentially been Garak).
Frankly, even the best fan productions simply don't have the capability to reach that depth or polish, no matter how enjoyable the final product may be.
That said, some of the fan films i've seen have blown me away, and hopefully more will strive to reach a more professional level of polish.
I think fan productions have a lot of potential and we've seen a definite evolution particularly over the last few years.
I think what's really needed, more than anything else, is writing that really knocks it out of the park. Something that aspires to aim higher than basically rehashing what we've already seen.
I think what's really needed, more than anything else, is writing that really knocks it out of the park. Something that aspires to aim higher than basically rehashing what we've already seen.
Similar threads
